Islam, " only a tiny minority".

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 259
#181
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian. 
I think you just may regret saying that, Keith?
Not unless Martians are all as biased as people!   The Royal Society has a motto:  'Nullius in Verba', often loosely translated as 'take no-one's word for it'.  I consider it excellent advice.

What people say and write is usually 'the truth', but it's not always or neccessarily the whole truth!   At least I don't assume it to be.  I assume everyone has a pov and I'm more likely to regret trusting what anyone says uncritically.



#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian. 
Even though we tend to intuitively believe "an objective (disinterested) 3rd party" is best able to provide clear analysis, I have trouble believing any "Martian" (or hypothetical proxy) would be able to understand the subtlety of the problem with enough insight to provide a workable real-world solution without making some appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum).
#183
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
It's unlikely we will find a Martian to test my theory of their impartiality.  But finding an impartial human is not much easier.
#184
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
From what. You? You who tells lies repeatedly and puts new meaning and definitions to you own fkn vile book to hide the fact that it is vile, barbaric and stuck in the 7th century. Don't make me laugh. You think much too highly of yourself you clown. You are no better at defending your barbaric ideology than any other apologist for this death cult;Islam.. 
- The only barbaric thing here is you & your mouth. You keep misquoting the Quran, & refuse to admit it. If you disagree, let's have a debate on that. I'm sure you have a lot to say.


No I didn't.  I addressed the relevant part.  And I will do it again for you now. 
- No, you have not. Your OP claims not a tiny minority of Muslims are radical for believing in applying their own book in their own countries. As it happens this is true(er) for Christians, especially in South America & Africa -& even in the US, which makes not a minority of Christians are also *radical* in exactly the same way (this isn't different for Hindus either). So, you're either a colossal hypocrite with serious case of cognitive dissonance, or all this is nonsense & religious people tend to believe in the supremacy of their respective books & that doesn't make them necessarily radical.


You wrote:
LOL! Radical Muslim = wanting Sharia as their law in their own country?? LMAO. 
I replied;
"And mine". 
- & I replied: Even that 0.001% of Muslims in your country who want Sharia there, it's *NOT* even applicable to non-Muslims. The difference is, your countries actually invade Muslim countries & bomb them -or the very least pressure them- to impose your own ways on them (as they have been doing the past 2 centuries)... Don't be conceited. At least the Muslims are not invading your countries with tanks & jets causing millions of deaths to impose their own ways on you -like your countries are doing.


Christians In Christian country maybe  do live by biblical law in part  but also by the law of the land that supersedes religious ' law'.  I won't argue that some English law maybe did find its roots in biblical law such as the fkn obvious "thou shalt not kill".
- So why are you complaining about Muslims living by their own book? You admitted Christians are just as radical... LOL! Muslims are also required by Sharia to follow the law of the land. In case it is against their religious directives they should still abide by the law, for it is a form of coercion, according to the Hanafi School ; or should leave the country according to the Maliki School. In all cases, they are -by Sharia- not allowed to break the law of the land. In a democracy -although the majority is going to win anyways- all citizens, including Muslims & you too, are entitled to voice their interests. If you don't like it, then drop the democracy -it's not a Muslim issue then, it's a democracy issue.


But I can assure you that there are no laws telling Christians to go out into the world and rob rape and maim and murder anyone who isn't Christian or refuses to believe in the Christ as the god in the barbaric vile book the quran commands.
- No such thing in the Quran. Throughout the Quran, fighting is exclusively sanctioned in self-defense to fight aggressors & oppressors & to establish peace. You are not going to find any indication of the opposite, because it does not exist. If you -foolishly- disagree, bring your proof. This is not the case for the Bible, as it is filled with aggressive warfare & calls to massacre civilians & innocent women & children (you know what I'm talking about). & history is filled with Christians going around the world doing exactly what you denied them. There is such a thing as Canon Law, & papal decrees...etc. For instance, the catholics declared Muslims Amalkites who should be annihilated (genocide) in the Crusades. Religious justification was also behind the perpetual wars which crippled Europe for centuries, & during the colonial period. Christians have been at it for the past 10 centuries almost non-stop. Even today, George Bush justifies his invasion of Iraq by some vision of Christ & devil.


So fk off. you have no argument here.
- No sir. YOU have no arguments, not so far as I can see. If you bring me one single verse in the Quran that says what you claim it says, then I will leave this religion. Have at it.


PEACEFUL MY ARSE! “We are commanded to terrorise the disbelievers”

"Allah commanded us to TERRORIZE the Infidels"
- Reminds of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkxqWp117eM Christians shouting damnations against random people. At least the Muslim guy thinks "terrorism" is to make people dread invading other countries & raping their women & pillaging their wealth (which America has been doing for the past decades), he is trying to fight injustice in his own way without hurting anyone. Maybe not the best approach, but you should be supporting him instead of those Christian Americans calling for the death of Muslims in the Middle East, "nuke them"... & you still dare to complain. Your country has to be brought to justice for all the war crimes it committed throughout its history. Seriously, have some shame.


PEACEFUL MY ARSE! APOSTASY.   “he wants to leave Islam, what do we do? :KILL HIM” 2:32 onwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPCLY2MKRCc
- Christian pastor calling for the execution of all gay people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w83kIAfuKoE , in your own words: PEACEFUL MY ARSE!
#185
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Gillian Gibbons and Asia Bibi were not murderers. What they actually did was not wicked or evil and a thousand things worse than that happen every day and nobody notices. Were there no rapes or murders on the day Gilliam named a stuffed toy 'Mohammed'?  No-one was defraued or paid a bribe that day? But it was Gillians trivial case that caused a mob - estimated at 10,000 strong - to gather and bay for blood.
- Again, I do not speak for Sudan or Pakistan. Yes, & countless other innocents suffer even more injustice every day, which you don't seem to care about. Dieudeune was not a murderer, what he did was not wicked or evil and a thousand things worse than that happens every day & nobody notices, yet he was sentenced to prison & fined $130k for denying the Holocaust (in France). Here is a list of wrongful convictions & wrongful executions in the USA, so please spare me the sensationalism: 


A lesson on the principle of inviolability and the difference between Hanafi and Hanbali jurisprudence doesn't explain why there were days of rioting over a village peasant's alleged passing remark. May be to explain that we need an insight into the 'realpolitics' of the Islamic world, not its theology.
- Though both women were innocent -Gibbons did not intend to offend (It's illegal in France to name your pet 'Napoleon' btw) & Bibi was provoked (which in Sharia invalidates any blasphemy charge), these cases tell you how much damage a person can do to a people by violating & humiliating their sanctities & how much hate that incites. These people weren't protesting because of what these women did, they were protesting because they felt humiliated & violated. These things can start wars. Christians in the West are indoctrinated to believe that sh*tting on their sanctities is ok & they have to put up with it for the sake of "free" -humiliating- speech, yet if they dare speak up their minds about homosexuals they are shunned for it. It's a violation of people's right & dignity to denigrate what they hold sacred. It's prohibited in Sharia (in the Quran) to violate other's sanctities, that's why I never quote the Bible (in here on on DDO) to prove a point, because it's a sacred book to the Christians. 

- Regardless, this is off topic. I was making the point that you impose your values on everybody regardless of their beliefs, while in Islam this extends only to the believers. & as always you managed to dodge this by going off topic. It's simply a demonstrable fact that a Secular system is inferior. Secularism is all about impressive labels & unimpressive content. Case in point, Free Speech such a nice label, disguising hateful & denigrating speech ; Tolerance another label, while he sanctities & honor of people are discarded... ;-) LOL!


That's bit of a 'well, duh', isn't it?  No-one expect un-authoratative opinions to carry weight!
- That's EXACTLY what non-traditional Islam adherents expect... They deny authority...


The problem is it doesn't stop people arguing about what is authorative!  If you are of one school the writings for your position are authoratative and the ones against your position are heretical, and - of course - vice versa.
- All traditional schools are equally authoritative in the Islamic Tradition. As long as you're a qualified licensed scholar your opinion is accredited, like is the case in any scholarly field. This is not the issue ; the issue is denying classical authority in favor of more 'protestantist' (for lack of a better term) ways of handling the sources. To be qualified to interpret scripture & issue rulings one must master a number of required disciplines. One can't interpret the Quran properly if one does not master Classical Arabic, or if one does not know the Prophet (pbuh)'s life & his narrations or does not understand the methodology of interpretation & jurisprudence. For instance, the minimum requirement for Hadith mastery in terms of memorization is the Six Canonical Collections, which contain altogether +34,000 narrations by +8200 narrators. The scholar must memorize all these narrations each with their respective chains of transmission, & must learn & memorize all the names & biographies of all the narrators, they also must study the exegeses of these collections. Today, people don't even know 2 hadiths & can't even say one correct sentence in Arabic grant themselves the right to interpret... 


Yassine says "Then you have the liberal Muslims who have zero scholarship & zero qualification" is that objective or one-sided partisan rhetoric? 
- There is no such thing as 'objective' in judgment, for judgement is perception & perception exists only in the mind of the perceiver. Indeed, that's just a fact, liberal Muslims have absolutely no qualification or scholarship whatsoever. None. Zero. I guarantee you they can't even express one correct sentence in Arabic. If you find a single liberal Muslim capable of speaking Arabic correctly, I'll personally send you 1000$ no questions asked (no cheating).


I think the only person I'd trust to be objective about this stuff is a Martian. 
- The least trustworthy person to be "objective" is the one not in the field, for they know the least.

#186
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Mehmed II introduced the word Politics into Arabic "Siyasah" from a book he published and claimed to be the collection of Politics doctrines of the Byzantine Caesars before him.
- Myth. First, 'Siyasah' is an Arabic word from the root 'S-w-s' (it's even mentioned in the Hadith...). Second, Politics as a discipline in the Islamic Tradition -very obviously- starts with the Prophet (pbuh) himself, as he was one of Man's greatest politicians. Third, when it comes to Politics the Persians had the most influence over any other group (Greeks or Romans...). & I assure you the Turks did not adopt how to run their state from the Romans, the two systems couldn't be further apart. But I'd love to know from whence this stupid claim came...


He gathered Italian artists, humanists and Greek scholars at his court, allowed the Byzantine Church to continue functioning, ordered the patriarch Gennadius to translate Christian doctrine into Turkish [LINK]
- Indeed. Plus his great support for scientific research. It was in his time that Qushji published his mathematical model of the cosmos, which would be adopted a century later by Copernicus in Europe.


The whole question revolves around your chosen definition of "radical Muslim".

Generally I take that to mean terrorist or supporting terrorist tactics.

By that standard, approximately 20% of Muslims can be described as "radical" or "extremist".
- That looks like an obscenely high number. It's probably more like 0.1%...


Many Mormons and Jews and Christians and Amish and Hindus have "controversial opinions" about the role of women in society and homosexuals and generally believe that laws should be based on their (more or less) ancient rule-book of choice.

Terrorists are bad.  I hope that's something we can all agree on.

Being a Muslim does not in-and-of-itself make you a terrorist.

Here's your STEEL MAN. [LINK]
- Yeah, no! Sam Harris is an ignorant moron with a knack for words. He has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.


If a person can lose their own inviolability, it doesn't sound very inviolable.
- They violate it themselves. A criminal by way of committing a crime transgresses against the rights of others thereby renouncing his own. A criminal can be licitly kidnapped & enslaved (sent to prison) because their right to Liberty is forfeit following his own actions. In Sharia, transgressing against the sacred rights of others forfeits one's own right. In the case of dhimmis, their inviolability is established through a covenant of protection which stipulates these basic rights, violating them means violating that covenant.


It sounds more like conditional human rights.
- Law is, by design, conditional. In the Islamic Tradition, there are two major camps on this issue. The Hanafi camp which deems Inviolability (Ismah) a human right, for humans are essentially dignified by God. Thus, the default interaction between individuals & states is that of peace, regardless of any social contracts or treaties -that's why they call it Human Inviolability (Ismah Adamyyah). The Maliki-Shafii-Hanbali camp deems Inviolability rather a social right, for it is granted by participation in society. In this case, the default interaction between individuals & states is that of non-inviolability unless otherwise established. An individual (or state) becomes inviolable only when they participate in or engage with society, by way of Faith (Ismat Millah, for Muslims) or Protection (Ismat Dhimmah, for non-Muslim citizens) or Security (Ismat Aman, for non-Muslim foreign residents) or Treaty (Ismat Ahd, for non-Muslims foreigners). That's why they have the dichotomy Abode of Islam vs. Abode of War, meaning: there can only be two states between countries, they are either in a State of Treaty otherwise in a State of War.


#187
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I think the big difference here is that while a Christian might say that *insert sin here* might be worthy of death, our religion is to forgive and pray that God will help them before it is too late.
- I admire your attitude & devotion.


We have no equivalent to sharia. We are not a legalistic faith.
- Canon Law, which was invented by your church. Religion is, by definition, a source of morality. & Law is, by definition, moral solutions to social issues. Pretending your morality -which you believe in- doesn't exist just to adopt secular morality is profoundly incoherent & hypocritical. 


Islam is inherently legalistic because it is a political entity.
- Nonsensical hogwash. Islam is not a political entity the same way it's not a cup of water! Islam is a source of morality. Law & Politics are applications of morality. Do the math. 


So no, really, I wouldn't say, "Oh no, those poor innocent fags" is the type of argument we use. They really deserve the punishment, because they are not innocent. We instead would say, "He who is without sin cast the first stone", and an honest person will be forced to admit that in some way they have gotten away with much, and have been forgiven much. Passing it forward is the right thing to do.
- No society can be run by love & forgiveness, that leads to absolute anarchy & self-annihilation. There is such a thing as justice too. 


And truly, secular government in the west became a thing because of all the religious wars that protestants would fight. This was the way to keep the peace.
- & Catholics...


Honestly, secular non-religious government that is distinct from the church is probably the most Christian form of government. A government that respects freedom of belief.
- & I thought you said the church's beliefs have not changed.


But no, that doesn't mean that sexual immorality is anything but, and truly every single one deserves death. No one should feel sorry for an adulterer. Sexual behavior is a choice, not anything but.

And no, Sharia doesn't put up with that crap. It isn't because it is unjust either. That is my point. It also doesn't put up with the godless either, and surely, it wouldn't be unjust to chuck anyone so foolish as to deny God into a pit of alligators or whatever cruel and medieval punishment sharia prescribes.
- You are literally speaking of medieval punishments in Europe by Christians. There is no such punishment in Islam.


But that is the difference between Islam and Christianity. We are a lot nicer.
- In a parallel universe, maybe. You seem to be completely oblivious to your history. 


Atheists not so, the idea of eradicating religion gets them off. That is why every atheist government kills believers to the extent that they can get away with it without pissing off too many people.
Something communists, fascists, and Muslims all have in common. They are all about the secular government.
- Dude, there has never been a more deadly religion in history than Christianity. The only place on Earth which had virtually no religious pluralism for the better part of its history until the late modern era is Christendom Europe, whereas in the rest of the world be it the Muslim world or India or China... religious pluralism was a standard, especially in the Muslim world. It took pushing Christianity out of power in Europe to get some degree of religious pluralism. These are just historical facts. You seem to be dissociated from historical reality.


The Church certainly does not condone the killing of others for their beliefs. It is built into the faith that we prefer to patiently wait in hopes that they are lead to repentance.
- I'm glad you firmly believe in this. Denying history & making false claims is not a good thing though.
#188
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
countless other innocents suffer even more injustice every day, which you don't seem to care about.
You misunderstand the issue.  I accept that by calling a teddy bear Mohammed Gibbons inadvertently committed an offence.  I would say a small fine wouldn't be inapporiate.   But what happened was thousands of people rioted in the streets and demanded her death!  There is a complete loss of perspective here.   I don't believe many Muslims - even devout ones - would react by rioting to something so trivial unless something else is going on.  At least I hope you agree that it was trivial.  If your ideal society is one where the tiniest infraction resuts in a public lynching then I can only wish you get to live in it.

I suspect that those mass protests were not spontaneous but engineered.   But I don't know enough about the internal politics of Islam to know by who or why.

Indeed, that's just a fact, liberal Muslims have absolutely no qualification or scholarship whatsoever. None. Zero. I guarantee you they can't even express one correct sentence in Arabic. If you find a single liberal Muslim capable of speaking Arabic correctly, I'll personally send you 1000$ no questions asked (no cheating).
But why would they need Arabic, unless it was for poring over ancient tomes which you said was not the basis of Islamic practice and Sharia.
 
#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
The canons of the church have nothing to do with secular law.

The Orthodox Catholic Church =/= Roman Catholic.


The Church is not intended to be a secular government. It is not supposed to be a worldly government. Never was supposed to. Mohammed set the precedent that Islam is a worldly government. The Caliph that followed conquered.





#190
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
You misunderstand the issue.  I accept that by calling a teddy bear Mohammed Gibbons inadvertently committed an offence.  I would say a small fine wouldn't be inapporiate.
- She was sentenced to two weeks in prison...


But what happened was thousands of people rioted in the streets and demanded her death!  There is a complete loss of perspective here. I don't believe many Muslims - even devout ones - would react by rioting to something so trivial unless something else is going on. At least I hope you agree that it was trivial. If your ideal society is one where the tiniest infraction resuts in a public lynching then I can only wish you get to live in it.
- I lived in Africa for many years, as I'm sure you have too. Thieves get lynched on the spot there if they are found out. As I said, this was not about what she did, it was about how people felt. She could've done absolutely nothing, but if the people thought she is the devil who came to humiliate them they are going to react differently. This is true in any society, when Americans were protesting & shouting "lock her up" or "send her back" they were reacting the same.


I suspect that those mass protests were not spontaneous but engineered. But I don't know enough about the internal politics of Islam to know by who or why.
- This has nothing with the "internal politics of Islam", what does that even mean! LOL! I wouldn't say engineered, but maybe intended. The woman who accused teacher Gibbons did it to screw the head of the school who she hated. When the news of 'blasphemy' came out, the preachers felt the need to talk about it in their Friday sermons as a matter of devotion, which escalated the situation way out of proportion. 
 

But why would they need Arabic, unless it was for poring over ancient tomes which you said was not the basis of Islamic practice and Sharia.
- The scriptures (Quran & Hadith) are in Arabic...?  

#191
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- She was sentenced to two weeks in prison...
My memory of that story involved the children choosing the name, do you have evidence that contradicts this?

#192
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
My memory of that story involved the children choosing the name, do you have evidence that contradicts this?
- It's probable. There is nothing wrong with naming a teddy bear Muhammed in good intent, it's a sign of affection -it's quite a popular name too. But after the accusations were made -out of spite- facts got twisted & emotions took over.
#193
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The canons of the church have nothing to do with secular law.

The Orthodox Catholic Church =/= Roman Catholic.
- You know fervently denying things doesn't magically make them untrue. I really thought you are a traditional Christian abiding by your tradition, but it turns out you're like the rest of them, bending your scripture & history to what you like to believe.


The Church is not intended to be a secular government. It is not supposed to be a worldly government. Never was supposed to.
- Except it was for much of its history & practice. 


Mohammed set the precedent that Islam is a worldly government. The Caliph that followed conquered.
- Again, Islam is not a government the same way it's not a teacup. 

#194
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
When the news of 'blasphemy' came out, the preachers felt the need to talk about it in their Friday sermons as a matter of devotion, which escalated the situation way out of proportion.  
If that is so, those preachers probably weren't saying how trivial it was.  I think what was going on is that the religious conservtives were sending a clear signal to the government to not cosy up to the west and secularism because 'we own the streets'.

This isn't a spat between acaemics over a fine point of theology.  This is a ideological clash between conservatism and progressiveness.
#195
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
I understand you are frustrated, but I am not being deceitful or dishonest.




The tradition of the holy canons has to do with church governance, not secular governance. It is not a judicial system.

And if I were you, I wouldn't throw stones about historical revisionism, because the only nice thing the church has to say about the Muslim conquerors is that they had lower taxes than the Roman Empire.


#196
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
If that is so, those preachers probably weren't saying how trivial it was. I think what was going on is that the religious conservtives were sending a clear signal to the government to not cosy up to the west and secularism because 'we own the streets'.
- It's probable. It's also probable they just thought there was attempt to humiliate Muslim sanctities, & they had to speak out. I don't know.


This isn't a spat between academics over a fine point of theology. This is a ideological clash between conservatism and progressiveness.
- Now who's inflating this out of proportion? No Muslim (or religious person) likes to hear his prophet or God humiliated or violated. You know there are blasphemy laws in -progressive- Europe too right?... Why do you care about this so much though? Why are we talking about this? You were just arguing for imposing your secular values on everyone regardless of their beliefs & systematically indoctrinating society into submitting to those values & alienating all other sources of -religious- morality from participating in nation under the pretext of "freedom" ...etc, 
#197
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I understand you are frustrated, but I am not being deceitful or dishonest.
- I believe you. Then you are uninformed.


The tradition of the holy canons has to do with church governance, not secular governance. It is not a judicial system.
- Canon Law is not just the holy canons... How do you think the Roman state & the Byzantium state & their legacies (in eastern Europe & Russia) operated? Canon Law also deals with family, civil & also criminal matters.


And if I were you, I wouldn't throw stones about historical revisionism, because the only nice thing the church has to say about the Muslim conquerors is that they had lower taxes than the Roman Empire.
- I actually read Islamic History (a good part of it at least). If you have any comments on it, by all means. "Lower taxes" is not it. The Roman Empire persecuted most Christian sects & expelled the Jews under its rule, reason why many Christians in the Levant & Egypt joined the Muslims to chase out the Romans. When Muslims got to Egypt, they found their Patriarch was exiled & they reinstated him. The ancient cathedral of Jerusalem which the Romans turned -literally- into a dump was restored under the Muslims (Umar)... & I go on. If you wish, we can have a formal debate about this. If you have other issues to raise regarding this, by all means.

#198
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine

I am certainly not defending The Roman Empire.

Monophysitism is a heresy, so the monophysite pope was not with the church.


Coptic Christians today have abandoned Monophysitism, and reunion with The Church is something that is going on behind the scenes. The so called "Oriental Orthodox" churches that decended from those who did not accept Chlacedon even use our buildings now, we are on very good terms. The schism is, as I said, being healed. Monophysitism, the heresy that expelled these churches, is no longer practiced by them.

Muslims have no business meddling with the church.

Which they did a lot. Especially the Turks.

And if you want to talk about restoring churches, give back The Hagia Sophia.


The Church is not a secular government. You say I am misinformed, but you don't even understand the basics of our theology let alone the the tradition of canons. I don't think discussing this would be fruitful, because The Caliphate certainly was a secular governmment, and it has not always been very nice. I don't think that pointing the finger back and forth making claims about things that allegedly happened in the past is particularly useful.


My position is very simple. I am an Orthodox Christian. I have more faith in the experience of the church than Mohammed,  who I believe was a false prophet.












#199
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Now who's inflating this out of proportion?
if it was a one off i'd be inflating things, but there are loads of similar stories.   Get this straight - I am not in the business of putting Islam in a bad light. I am not Stephen.  The problem is that Islam and Muslims already have a lousy reputation with many - if not most - westerners.   One reason is stories like the ones I picked out  that make Muslims appear like a blood thirsty mob following a bizarre and intolerant ideology.

What you have said so far is that is the truth!  According to you Muslims can lose their rag over something trivial and turn into a howing mob.   How reassured the people of Bradford will be to hear that about their new neighbours!

The thing is you are wrong. 
#200
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
if it was a one off i'd be inflating things, but there are loads of similar stories.   Get this straight - I am not in the business of putting Islam in a bad light. I am not Stephen.  The problem is that Islam and Muslims already have a lousy reputation with many - if not most - westerners.   One reason is stories like the ones I picked out  that make Muslims appear like a blood thirsty mob following a bizarre and intolerant ideology.
- That's not a reason, it's a case. A case for prejudice. A prejudice against Islam & Muslims time-immemorial old -which is reinforced through indoctrination, culture & politics. Western Thought is distinctively universalist & exceptionalist ; meaning: "my preferences are truths, & yours preferences are myths, to which you've been indoctrinated all your life. The West -legacy of Christendom- carries an imbedded collective memory antithetical to Islam & Muslims -to the point of shaping western identity itself. Add fuel to the fire, the political relationship between West & Muslim world has always been plagued with conflict. & Politics dictate narrative. The enemy is always portrayed in the worst light, dehumanized & demonized -how else is he an enemy. The reality of it is, there has never been a more deadly ideology in history than Western ideology, or a more aggressive political entity than the West. It doesn't matter that the Europeans came & annihilated an entire continent, they were the bad barbaric guys. It doesn't matter than the US invades Muslim countries to lay waste to them killing & displacing millions & millions, they are the bad & barbaric people ; just as you say, "bizarre intolerant ideology", reality is elsewhere. It's stupefying, I know. This profound prejudice & hegemony is inherent irrespective of what Muslims do or don't. Case in point, decades back Europeans disparaged Muslims for allowing divorce in their religion, once they adopted it, they disparaged them for allowing it in a different way than their own. It's childish, I know!


What you have said so far is that is the truth!  According to you Muslims can lose their rag over something trivial and turn into a howing mob. 
- Case in point. You are a prime example of said prejudice. Americans turn into a howling mob for a hassled dog & a dead monkey. They turn into vengeful tyrants against innocents for just being 'others'. The whole western world turned into a howling mod & all their sovereigns lost their rags to gather in Paris in a march of glory to defend their sacred cause, to move to invade & bomb countries for it. This cause is not even real, it's not a person or a place, it's just a thought, an idol. It's ok to violate Muslim sanctities, but a redline when it comes to western sanctities. This level of incoherence & hypocrisy is just unbelievable. & you thought Muslims in Sudan "overreacted" when they felt what they hold sacred was violated?! 


How reassured the people of Bradford will be to hear that about their new neighbours!
"By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! By Allah, he is not a believer! One whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil"
"Jibril kept recommending me to treat my neighbor well until I thought that he would tell me to make him one of my heirs"
"He is not a believer who eats his fill whilst his neighbor beside him goes hungry"
"O Muslim women! No one should scorn the gift of a neighbor, even if it is (only) a sheep’s foot", Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)
A man asked, "O Messenger of Allah! There is a woman who prays, gives charity and fasts a great deal, but she harms her neighbors with her speech (by insulting them)" He said: "She will go to hell". The man said: "O messenger of Allah! There is (another) woman who is well-known for how little she fasts and prays, but she gives charity from the dried yoghurt she makes and she does not harm her neighbors". He said: "She will go to paradise". 

- I think the people of Bradford are in good hands.


The thing is you are wrong.
- You shouldn't be staring at mirrors.


#201
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I am certainly not defending The Roman Empire.

Monophysitism is a heresy, so the monophysite pope was not with the church.
- OK...


Coptic Christians today have abandoned Monophysitism, and reunion with The Church is something that is going on behind the scenes. The so called "Oriental Orthodox" churches that decended from those who did not accept Chlacedon even use our buildings now, we are on very good terms. The schism is, as I said, being healed. Monophysitism, the heresy that expelled these churches, is no longer practiced by them.
- Unity is always a good thing for a good cause. Coptic Christians are probably my favorite type of Christian.


Muslims have no business meddling with the church.

Which they did a lot. Especially the Turks.
- The Church was in on it too. They meddled in the affairs of Ulama as well, which is not ideal -nasty politics.


And if you want to talk about restoring churches, give back The Hagia Sophia.
- There is a lot of mosques in Spain/Balkans turned churches too... Maybe we can make an exchange.


The Church is not a secular government. You say I am misinformed, but you don't even understand the basics of our theology let alone the the tradition of canons. I don't think discussing this would be fruitful, because The Caliphate certainly was a secular governmment, and it has not always been very nice. I don't think that pointing the finger back and forth making claims about things that allegedly happened in the past is particularly useful.
- I admire your devotion & sincere attitude. But you don't seem to realize I'm not a believer in your religion. I do not concede the assumptions & doctrine of your church. Concession in this case comes after proof, which you are not doing a very good job at providing. Also, when I speak of the Church, I'm speaking from a historical framework, which does not necessarily reflect your own beliefs or the position of your church today. The caliphate is indeed a secular government. & indeed there is a lot of instances in history in which rulers were abusive, to their Muslim &/or non-Muslim subjects. My case was, on a systematic level the Islamic regime was -overall- a good thing to the Christians of the Middle East, which allowed them to preserve their religions, their cultures, even their languages. The Christian population of the Middle East went from less than half pre-Islamic time to 20% early 20th century (pre colonization & secularization of the ME) down 30 points in 13 centuries. To this day, dozens of religions, dozens of ethnic groups & dozens of languages still survive in the ME. If Muslims adopted Secularism or any other system, none of those will exist today.


My position is very simple. I am an Orthodox Christian. I have more faith in the experience of the church than Mohammed,  who I believe was a false prophet.
- But I'm not an Orthodox Christian, so don't engage with me as if I am one. Why don't we debate your claim "Muhammed is a false prophet"?

#202
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
- It's probable. There is nothing wrong with naming a teddy bear Muhammed in good intent, it's a sign of affection -it's quite a popular name too. But after the accusations were made -out of spite- facts got twisted & emotions took over.
You are either naive or disengenuous.   You have to ask who was behind the twisting of the facts andfor inlaming the people's emotions  - and why.

People like you and Stephen seem to think all the hawks are on one side and all the doves on the other and that problem scan be solved by finger pointing.  In the meantime the body count just goes up and up.
Topic's author
#203
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
People like you and Stephen seem to think all the hawks are on one side and all the doves on the other

yes unfortunately that is usually the way it works when faced with the overtake of a country.



and that problems can be solved by finger pointing. 

OK. I believe the west has a problem with Islam. SO YOU tell ME where I should be pointing the finger?

 And I am still waiting for your recommendations for a solution to the problem of an ideology that you say you are "no fan of" and one that you say "needs its teeth pulling"? I have given you mine often enough.
#204
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
OK. I believe the west has a problem with Islam. SO YOU tell ME where I should be pointing the finger?
What you should do depends on what effect you want your posts to have.
Topic's author
#205
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
OK. I believe the west has a problem with Islam. SO YOU tell ME where I should be pointing the finger? 
What you should do depends on what effect you want your posts to have.

You can never answer question brought about by your own fk statements, can you? I didn't ask for your advice on "what I should do".  In fact I am still waiting for your recommendations on what YOU would do about Islam that you say you are no fan of and you say "needs its teeth pulling" and call "backward". here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1707/why-is-islam-backward



You have decried me "pointing fingers" at Islam. Where then should I be pointing the finger if not at what I believe is the threat?



#206
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Where then should I be pointing the finger if not at what I believe is the threat?
There are loads of people pointing their finger at 'the threat'.   I don't think recycling the right-wing network's meme of the day is what the world needs right now.




Topic's author
#207
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

Where then should I be pointing the finger if not at what I believe is the threat? 
There are loads of people pointing their finger at 'the threat'.   I don't think recycling the right-wing network's meme of the day is what the world needs right now.



You just can' answer the question can you?  You have decried me "pointing the finger at Islam", so where should I be pointing it? Why are you having some much fkn trouble with this question.

You also keep avoiding this>>>WHY? 

In fact I am still waiting for your recommendations on what YOU would do about Islam that you say you are no fan of and you say "needs its teeth pulling" and call "backward". here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1707/why-is-islam-backward

#208
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
so where should I be pointing it?
I think you shouldn't be pointing at all!  As I said, there are enough people doing that already.   I'm not trying to shut you up or censor you, but what is needed is more analysis and less rhetoric.

#209
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Stephen
OK. I believe the west has a problem with Islam. SO YOU tell ME where I should be pointing the finger?

 And I am still waiting for your recommendations for a solution to the problem of an ideology that you say you are "no fan of" and one that you say "needs its teeth pulling"? I have given you mine often enough.

He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.
#210
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Stephen
The European nations would have a more genuine interest for relative stability in the Middle East than the United States, but still the US and its military industrial complex is tasked with the unwinnable "War on Terror".  At some point "The west" (Western Europe) should be able to coordinate for a larger share in their own regional interests.  I think if you want to point fingers on these events, you need to go back before WWII.